From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 10 03:54:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552E037B401 for ; Sat, 10 May 2003 03:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay9.melbpc.org.au (newglider.melbpc.org.au [203.12.152.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D221043F85 for ; Sat, 10 May 2003 03:54:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kpeter@melbpc.org.au) Received: from melbpc.org.au (a2-37.melbpc.org.au [203.12.157.37]) by relay9.melbpc.org.au (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h4AArqZv057702 for ; Sat, 10 May 2003 20:53:57 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from kpeter@melbpc.org.au) Message-ID: <3EBCDA3E.5030802@melbpc.org.au> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 20:53:50 +1000 From: Peter Kostouros Organization: Melbourne PC User Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030413 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.4(snapshot 20020706) (relay9) Subject: mono-0.24 - mcs hogging -CURRENT machine X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: kpeter@melbpc.org.au List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:54:05 -0000 Hi I am having difficulty compiling code using mcs: Basically, when compiling the mono process hogs the machine and does not seem to complete. It may be that I am running -CURRENT/SCHED_ULE (about four hours old). During a debug session, I came across a reference to libc.so.6 in mono-0.24/mono/mini/exceptions-x86.c (function init_frame_state_for). Should the reference be to libc.so.4 or 5, instead? Changing init_frame_state_for to reference libc.so.5 results in compilation that may or may not complete, however this time the process does not hog the machine. I am not sure if it is a threading issue or an I/O problem. Is anyone experiencing something similar? Any suggestions (other than try the other scheduler). -- Regards Peter As always the organisation disavows knowledge of this email